Russia should go further than ceremonial, and get a functional monarchy. I am not sure how the Russian people would feel on it, however (though I seem to recall a particular saint or elder predicting this would eventually happen).

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Why should one care about Russian monarchy? God willed it to be destroyed because of the church's mingling with politics. God wanted the Church to be humbled and to call Christ its King and not sully herself with earthly kings, even if they be "Orthodox." He who said "my Kingdom is not of this world" sought not a worldly kingdom to be established by the Church, but for the Church to store her treasures in a spiritual manner, in the Kingdom of Heaven.

As for what's going on in Great Britain, I am quite frustrated at the media's waste of time, where so many other more important issues are going on in the world.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 09:35:25 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Why should one care about Russian monarchy? God willed it to be destroyed because of the church's mingling with politics. God wanted the Church to be humbled and to call Christ its King and not sully herself with earthly kings, even if they be "Orthodox." He who said "my Kingdom is not of this world" sought not a worldly kingdom to be established by the Church, but for the Church to store her treasures in a spiritual manner, in the Kingdom of Heaven.

As for what's going on in Great Britain, I am quite frustrated at the media's waste of time, where so many other more important issues are going on in the world.

I think, if memory serves, that Tsar Nicholas was considering implementing some sort of cooperative agreement with a Parliament type of organization, before he was murdered. The Diet, I believe it was called. It would have included more moderate groups than the Communists. If these plans had not been interrupted, I think we would have had a much different history of the country. If they could set up a constitutional monarchy today, it might indeed be a workable thing.

I think, if memory serves, that Tsar Nicholas was considering implementing some sort of cooperative agreement with a Parliament type of organization, before he was murdered. The Diet, I believe it was called. It would have included more moderate groups than the Communists. If these plans had not been interrupted, I think we would have had a much different history of the country. If they could set up a constitutional monarchy today, it might indeed be a workable thing.

I personally think it'd be good to have a combination of a Republic & a Monarchy. For example, in the United States, we have our 3-branched government, and we elect a head-of-state, who doesn't have absolute authority.If the US were to become a constitutional monarchy (just a hypothetical mind you), then I would envision it to be a situation where power was further divided, with the monarch being a hereditary institution.

For Russia, I would like to see a system divided between 3 primary "rulers", that of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Czar. Each would have unique powers and abilities, as well as unique influences. The people would elect the President, the Prime Minister would be appointed by the Federal Assembly, and of course, the Czar/Czaritsa would inherit the throne.

The President & Prime Minister wouldn't have much restrictions, but the Czar/Czaritsa would have to be an Orthodox Christian in good standing with the Church.

I say leave it up to the Russians. I do have to admit however, that I did imagine a Russian wedding of equal note and dignity coming out of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow in my mind as I was half awake this morning.

One has to remember however that by the 20th century, the Royal Families of Europe were Royals first and religious folks second. The last Tsarina was widely regarded, and rightly so, as a German interloper by many Russians. By that I mean that they were so-intermingled by marriage and politics that faith had little to do with their function other than in a ceremonial manner. Religion was no obstacle to a marriage, the Houses of all of the warring parties of the 19th and 20th centuries were for the most part all descendants of Queen Victoria and the sitting Crowned heads were first or second cousins. Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Evangelical and Reformed - it made no difference. It can be said that the Royals of Europe had become the first 'ecumenists' by 1900.

In that context it is hard to imagine the religious wars that occurred throughout the middle ages and into the early enlightenment over Church, state and faith.

I personally think it'd be good to have a combination of a Republic & a Monarchy.

I believe it's called a "Constitutional Monarchy". It's the way the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have operated for quite a while now.

Logged

Was it Divine Liturgy in English in XIXth Century Russia? No, it was not I am the telling you! Is OUTRAGE! Now is to be Slavonic music and Byzantine vestment in same church. This is what when KGB run the seminary.

Why should one care about Russian monarchy? God willed it to be destroyed because of the church's mingling with politics.

I'm afraid you are extrapolating what some consider the Coptic experience. Pope St. Cyril had absolutely NO problem mingling the Church with politics, and I know of no Coptic criticism for him doing so. Pope Dioscoros had absolutely no problem with that either, and all the criticism I've seen from Copts on his papacy is directed to the Emperor Marcian, the Empresss Pulcheria and the Emperor Theodosios (which also conveniently forgets the backing of the latter two (in particular Pulceria) to Pope St. Cyril), and of the last to Pope Dioscoros at Ephesus. Nor did I ever hear Coptic criticism of the Ethiopian Emperor, nor in Medieveal times of the Nubian King.

If God willed it to be destroyed because of "the Church's mingling with politics," He sure took his sweet time:988-1917, the state of all the Rus' placed a premium on itself as the sponser of the Orthodox Faith.

God wanted the Church to be humbled and to call Christ its King and not sully herself with earthly kings, even if they be "Orthodox."

Caesar finally rendered to God that which is God'sand that was by His own indicationwhich made all the Ecumenical Councils possible, each one-whether you hold 2, 3 or 7, were called by the involvement of the Emperor.

As for what's going on in Great Britain, I am quite frustrated at the media's waste of time, where so many other more important issues are going on in the world.

Man does not live by bread alone. I rather liked the Bp. of London's sermonizing on that point. In the era of the Vegas "wedding" it's nice to see one done right that expounds on what marriage is about (and they expounded quite a bit:I like the way the Abp. of Cantebury tied the knot, literally).

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 12:02:40 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I personally think it'd be good to have a combination of a Republic & a Monarchy.

I believe it's called a "Constitutional Monarchy". It's the way the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have operated for quite a while now.

LOL. And America before the rebellion. The yanks like to blame George III, but he had no power to tax.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:57:21 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually, I'm shocked how many Amereicans are monarchists. And I mean the general population, not just the Orthodox, convert or otherwise.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:56:57 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Actually, I'm shocked how many Amereicans are monarchists. And I mean the general population, not just the Orthodox, convert or otherwise.

As in establishing an American monarchy, or just loving foreign monarchs?

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Actually, I'm shocked how many Amereicans are monarchists. And I mean the general population, not just the Orthodox, convert or otherwise.

As in establishing an American monarchy, or just loving foreign monarchs?

Suprisingly, both.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think, if memory serves, that Tsar Nicholas was considering implementing some sort of cooperative agreement with a Parliament type of organization, before he was murdered. The Diet, I believe it was called. It would have included more moderate groups than the Communists. If these plans had not been interrupted, I think we would have had a much different history of the country. If they could set up a constitutional monarchy today, it might indeed be a workable thing.

the Duma was set up. It just had no power, and little respect.

Besides Tsar St. Nicholas' riegn, as always, more of the drag was with the aristocracy, rather than the monarchy.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 12:08:52 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The only positive that I can see out of the monarchy in modern times is in its unifying force on a nation, as in the case of the United Kingdoms and the role of George VI during the war. That being said, their monarchy has a 'special' role in her history. While in the States we joined the ceremonial functions of head of state with that of the chief political leader there is something to be said that in today's extremely divisive political climate in America that those who politically disagree with a President do not respect that Presidency as an 'embodiment' of the nation.

However, without the historical strength which embodies 'nationhood' as in England with a Royal history running from the mythology of King Arthur, through St. Edward the Confessor, to Richard the Lionheart, to Henry II and St.Thomas Becket, to Henry V at Agincourt, to Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, the Civil War and the Restoration all the way through Victoria and George VI, the Queen Mother and Elizabeth II, grafting a monarchy to a nation such as the US is a foolish pipe-dream and unworkable.

I think, if memory serves, that Tsar Nicholas was considering implementing some sort of cooperative agreement with a Parliament type of organization, before he was murdered. The Diet, I believe it was called. It would have included more moderate groups than the Communists. If these plans had not been interrupted, I think we would have had a much different history of the country. If they could set up a constitutional monarchy today, it might indeed be a workable thing.

From what I've read, St Nicholas was tormented by this, because he truly believed that monarchy (not just Russia's but monarchy as a system) was the divine form of government and by his oath he had no right to abridge its powers.

This defense of Orthodox Monarchy is not limited to American converts. There are plenty of saints who wrote about how monarchy is the ideal form of government because it mirrors the Church administrative structure and reflects the divine monarchy of God as well. Of course, the monarch—like the bishop—has much more to answer for in the hereafter as well. Much is given, much is expected.

Why should one care about Russian monarchy? God willed it to be destroyed because of the church's mingling with politics. God wanted the Church to be humbled and to call Christ its King and not sully herself with earthly kings, even if they be "Orthodox." He who said "my Kingdom is not of this world" sought not a worldly kingdom to be established by the Church, but for the Church to store her treasures in a spiritual manner, in the Kingdom of Heaven.

As for what's going on in Great Britain, I am quite frustrated at the media's waste of time, where so many other more important issues are going on in the world.

I don't really see how God willed it to be destroyed.

I agree. It sounds very fatalistic to say that the actions of the Bolsheviks were God's will.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 04:22:12 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Don't you know that in Russia, every proletarian worker is king? The fact that there are people who still worship Lenin in Russia is a fact that you do not take into account.The fact that many Russians acknowledge Aloshka Morozov as a saint is another sign of how the Prekrasna is from Christ. In a couple days, we will have Victory Day celebrations, look at the pictures coming from post-Sovietlandia.

Anyways I am responding too seriously to this post. Read some Freud or Hegel, Devin, like a normal secular Orthodox person.

"A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar". - St. Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and Gallich

wow... thats a bit extreme.

The word you are looking for is heretical.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar". - St. Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and Gallich

wow... thats a bit extreme.

The word you are looking for is heretical.

I think the quote makes for good conversation. While I don't know if St. Vladimir's words are confirmed by patristics (and I doubt that they are), I wouldn't call it heretical. After all, who is "worthy" to stand at the altar?

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Don't you know that in Russia, every proletarian worker is king? The fact that there are people who still worship Lenin in Russia is a fact that you do not take into account.The fact that many Russians acknowledge Aloshka Morozov as a saint is another sign of how the Prekrasna is from Christ. In a couple days, we will have Victory Day celebrations, look at the pictures coming from post-Sovietlandia.

Anyways I am responding too seriously to this post. Read some Freud or Hegel, Devin, like a normal secular Orthodox person.

Why should I care about what Freud, an Atheist, has to say about anything? I'm not going to read his work, just knowing his thoughts on God and religion prove that his other philosophies are just going to be deceptive, untrue, unorthodox, unchristian and frankly, just plain wrong. I'm not going to ever trust a Godless person like him on anything.(yes I do have Atheist friends, but I'm not going to seek their advice or knowledge)

"At the Last Judgment I will not be asked whether I satisfactorily practiced asceticism, nor how many bows I have made before the divine altar. I will be asked whether I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and the prisoner in his jail. That is all I will be asked." - Sv. Maria Skobotsova

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

"A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar". - St. Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and Gallich

wow... thats a bit extreme.

The word you are looking for is heretical.

I think the quote makes for good conversation. While I don't know if St. Vladimir's words are confirmed by patristics (and I doubt that they are), I wouldn't call it heretical. After all, who is "worthy" to stand at the altar?

Besides Christ the King, no one. But St. Vladimir didn't say no one was worthy, he claimed being a monarchist made one worthy and not being a monarchist disqualified, imposing a condition that Christ nor His Church recognized nor required.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As both a monarchist and a Jacobite, I think Russia should put a Stuart (now Wittenbach) on their throne.

Actually, the Windsor kids are both Rurikids and Romanovs. And Stuart.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Don't you know that in Russia, every proletarian worker is king? The fact that there are people who still worship Lenin in Russia is a fact that you do not take into account.The fact that many Russians acknowledge Aloshka Morozov as a saint is another sign of how the Prekrasna is from Christ. In a couple days, we will have Victory Day celebrations, look at the pictures coming from post-Sovietlandia.

Anyways I am responding too seriously to this post. Read some Freud or Hegel, Devin, like a normal secular Orthodox person.

Why should I care about what Freud, an Atheist, has to say about anything? I'm not going to read his work, just knowing his thoughts on God and religion prove that his other philosophies are just going to be deceptive, untrue, unorthodox, unchristian and frankly, just plain wrong. I'm not going to ever trust a Godless person like him on anything.(yes I do have Atheist friends, but I'm not going to seek their advice or knowledge)

SL is only bemoaning the fate of Stanisław II August. Part of his rebellion against his lawful sovereigns of the House of King Aleksander I.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:42:06 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why should one care about Russian monarchy? God willed it to be destroyed because of the church's mingling with politics.

I'm afraid you are extrapolating what some consider the Coptic experience. Pope St. Cyril had absolutely NO problem mingling the Church with politics, and I know of no Coptic criticism for him doing so. Pope Dioscoros had absolutely no problem with that either, and all the criticism I've seen from Copts on his papacy is directed to the Emperor Marcian, the Empresss Pulcheria and the Emperor Theodosios (which also conveniently forgets the backing of the latter two (in particular Pulceria) to Pope St. Cyril), and of the last to Pope Dioscoros at Ephesus. Nor did I ever hear Coptic criticism of the Ethiopian Emperor, nor in Medieveal times of the Nubian King.

Of course, not without repercussions. If you're looking for a Coptic criticism of the mixing of politics, in looking back to history, we have to acknowledge some members of the Church or emperors may have crossed the line in this one despite some good it may have brought, it also brought about some not so good. The punishment of heretics under imperial law for instance directly contradicts the Edict of Milan, guaranteeing all a freedom of religion. I find it very telling in history that when a persecuted group gets power, they can become quite oppressive and sometimes vengefully so. When powerless, worldly that is, spirituality strengthens (reminds me of the Pauline verse, foolishness in the eyes of God is wiser than the wisest, and weakness in the eyes of God is stronger than the strongest, or something like that). There is no doubt for instance that the golden age of Russian saints happened during Communist persecution, and there is no doubt that the surge of monasticism in Roman imperial Christianity happened when the rate of fake Christians increased so that they may receive political benefits, not spiritual benefits.

So, St. Cyril. We have St. Cyril who was helped by Empress Pulcheria and Emperor Theodosius. And yet St. Cyril in the end was still incarcerated by the brief schism caused by John of Antioch at the anti-council of Ephesus. Did St. Cyril ask the emperor help for the resolution of the schism? No! Instead, there was a two year dialogue that eventually lead to the famous Formulary letter, and this was no thanks to the emperor.

What else? Ah, yes, St. Dioscorus. I'm not going to get much into this. But considering that you are a supporter of the Joint Commissions, and that there were some devastating consequences on the punishment of heretics in the middle of that fiery fifth century, we can imply that there were mistakes made that allowed us to have the imperial authorities handle the punishments of heretics, pagans, and Jews quite brutally at that time that seemed to solidify our respective OO/EO divisions.

One can accuse me of unfair anachronism. But as I repeated, the edict of Milan gave the idea, and for Christian emperors to forget about the edict...my gosh!!! You mentioned the councils; wonderful thing about Nicea; its convener seemed to have forgotten about this precious council, just as he had forgotten about his precious edict, which lead to St. Athanasius being a fugitive; and you're asking me, I should tip my hat to St. Constantine for Nicea?

Quote

If God willed it to be destroyed because of "the Church's mingling with politics," He sure took his sweet time:988-1917, the state of all the Rus' placed a premium on itself as the sponser of the Orthodox Faith.

Someone else wrote here, and I vigorously wrote against it, about how the Russian emperor at one point asked all the people to be baptized to the nearest waters or else they be punished severely or something like that. Is that really the foundation of "glorious Orthodox Russia," to spread Christianity by force, and then there would be peace? Does not that sound like Islam? "Submit to (fill in religion) and then there will be peace." or let's compare this to the Roman empire, "Submit to (fill in religion) and then you will get imperial benefits." This is the type of stuff atheists feed on.

God wanted the Church to be humbled and to call Christ its King and not sully herself with earthly kings, even if they be "Orthodox."

Caesar finally rendered to God that which is God'sand that was by His own indicationwhich made all the Ecumenical Councils possible, each one-whether you hold 2, 3 or 7, were called by the involvement of the Emperor.

As for what's going on in Great Britain, I am quite frustrated at the media's waste of time, where so many other more important issues are going on in the world.

Man does not live by bread alone. I rather liked the Bp. of London's sermonizing on that point. In the era of the Vegas "wedding" it's nice to see one done right that expounds on what marriage is about (and they expounded quite a bit:I like the way the Abp. of Cantebury tied the knot, literally).

I have no comment on Latins. Clearly, they also had power for 1000+ years (talk about God taking his time?), and yet even the Latin Church will admit a lot of wrong things occurred. And their dissolution was different than the dissolution Orthodox people experienced. Perhaps it may be heterodoxy, perhaps it may be culture, I don't know. All I know is that there is a clear, very very clear pattern in history, where Christian empires are doomed to failure. It may have taken a millenium, it may have taken less. The Ethiopian empire herself is not without her faults in history either. In fact, even Haille Sellassie was criticized. He may have had great saintly qualities, but his dabbling in politics also puts him at a level of defilement as well.

You quoted a verse:

I do not pray that Thou shouldst take them out of the world...As Thou didst send Me into the world, so I have sent them into the world...

What ever happened to the idea that a Christian is sufficient where he is? In the Arabic countries, I've visited poor people, and while I may go back home and complain about taxes and exams and debt, here I see poor people always smiling, always accommodating, and they say "Thank God." You have the typical atheist sitting comfortably in his mediocre house (giving the benefit of the doubt) who sells his books based on the condemnation of God and how God is not here to take away the evil and the poor of this world, but the poor of the this world feel they have more than enough because of God's grace? How interestingly ironic life is, and how stupid I must be to go back and complain about taxes and debt and studying, when I should be thanking God more than they do because of the lofty position I am in right now. These are the Christians, who always "Thank God" for any condition, concerning any condition, and in any condition, who do not need a monarchy, who do not need loftiness, who do not need anything in this world but God. They are good citizens of the world, but they are reminded that they still foreigners of this world. Whatever rights I possess, Thank God. Thank God for those rights. And clearly Egypt is probably one of the worst in this world when it comes to human rights, and yet, they say, "Thank God." And what do I care about? "May God bring back Russian Orthodox monarchy!" Why don't first ask, "May God have mercy on my soul, may God comfort me and give me peace, may God give peace upon the world." Because time and time again, an Orthodox monarchy was not the source of peace and good Orthodoxy in this world. If anything, communist Russia weeded out the fake Christians from the true ones. Yes, I said it. Not that I support their oppression, but that the Russian saints made the best of it, and showed them what real Christians are made of.

So ya, whether it be three councils, or seven, whether it be St. Constantine, or St. Vladimir, or Haille Sellassie, I don't care. What the councils brought about, thanks for them. May God reward their Orthodoxy. But may God also deliver us from unnecessary foolish thinking that those were great times of Christianity.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2011, 11:43:47 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Don't you know that in Russia, every proletarian worker is king? The fact that there are people who still worship Lenin in Russia is a fact that you do not take into account.The fact that many Russians acknowledge Aloshka Morozov as a saint is another sign of how the Prekrasna is from Christ. In a couple days, we will have Victory Day celebrations, look at the pictures coming from post-Sovietlandia.

Anyways I am responding too seriously to this post. Read some Freud or Hegel, Devin, like a normal secular Orthodox person.

Why should I care about what Freud, an Atheist, has to say about anything? I'm not going to read his work, just knowing his thoughts on God and religion prove that his other philosophies are just going to be deceptive, untrue, unorthodox, unchristian and frankly, just plain wrong. I'm not going to ever trust a Godless person like him on anything.(yes I do have Atheist friends, but I'm not going to seek their advice or knowledge)

SL is only bemoaning the fate of Stanisław II August. Part of his rebellion against his lawful sovereigns of the House of King Aleksander I.

Okay, you are insane!! How is Tsar Alexander Romanov my lawful sovereign? What country are the Romanovs the sovereigns? All jokes aside, I live in ex-Russian Poland but my father is from Galicja, so my Tsar is the Austrian Tsar, since citizenship passes from the father to son, I am a subject of the Holy Roman Emperor and Apostolic King of Hungary! I'm kidding the Russian Empire, Austro-Hungary and Galicja don't exist. The Hapsburgs and Romanovs died out.

Don't you know that in Russia, every proletarian worker is king? The fact that there are people who still worship Lenin in Russia is a fact that you do not take into account.The fact that many Russians acknowledge Aloshka Morozov as a saint is another sign of how the Prekrasna is from Christ. In a couple days, we will have Victory Day celebrations, look at the pictures coming from post-Sovietlandia.

Anyways I am responding too seriously to this post. Read some Freud or Hegel, Devin, like a normal secular Orthodox person.

Why should I care about what Freud, an Atheist, has to say about anything? I'm not going to read his work, just knowing his thoughts on God and religion prove that his other philosophies are just going to be deceptive, untrue, unorthodox, unchristian and frankly, just plain wrong. I'm not going to ever trust a Godless person like him on anything.(yes I do have Atheist friends, but I'm not going to seek their advice or knowledge)

Freud was a nonpractising Jew, who always underlined his heritage. Anyways, he was more Christian than most Christians today because he had six children, something today's Christians view with derision. Don't associate Freud with psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychology went down hill after WW2, psychology went from being a science studying the human soul to feel-good motivational science. Freud centered his studies on the effect of the sin of Adam and Moses on human soul. His first "patients" were Adam and Moses. Originally, he was denigrated by fellow psychiatrists as an unstable over-religious psychotic victim. How he became atheist in the eyes of people is beyond me.

This thread made me think of my grandfather and his utter contempt for his monarch which possessed him to leave Europe as fast as he could with his wife and child around the time of the end of the Hapsburghs and Romanovs. I suspect that many of us who are descendants of the early immigrants who brought Orthodoxy to these shores share in the collective memory of the 'benefits' of feudal monarchy. Don't romanticize something that wasn't. The fathers and Saints you quote wrote from the wellspring of their own knowledge and experiences of the times in which they lived. Their writings and beliefs hold no strain of 'infallibility' which binds us today. One has to pray and discern what they meant in the context of our times.

Freud was a nonpractising Jew, who always underlined his heritage. Anyways, he was more Christian than most Christians today because he had six children, something today's Christians view with derision. Don't associate Freud with psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychology went down hill after WW2, psychology went from being a science studying the human soul to feel-good motivational science. Freud centered his studies on the effect of the sin of Adam and Moses on human soul. His first "patients" were Adam and Moses. Originally, he was denigrated by fellow psychiatrists as an unstable over-religious psychotic victim. How he became atheist in the eyes of people is beyond me.

Try reading a bit on psychology. By the looks of it, a Psych 101 course at a community college would be an improvement. Then come back and we can talk. k?

As both a monarchist and a Jacobite, I think Russia should put a Stuart (now Wittenbach) on their throne.

You know, I thought you meant something I know very well about what "Jacobite" meant, until I read you're from the OCA. So, I'm kinda confused. What is a "Jacobite"?

In this context, I'm pretty sure he means he supports the restoration of the Stuart line/dynasty to the English/Scottish throne. The Stuart line began in England with James I (who was also James VI in Scotland) and ended with James II and VII. A Jacobite is someone who supports the claim of the Stuarts to the throne and does not recognise the monarchy of William of Orange who next ascended the throne.

I believe James II and VII was the last Catholic monarch to reign in England/Scotland. William of Orange was a confirmed protestant.

Don't you know that in Russia, every proletarian worker is king? The fact that there are people who still worship Lenin in Russia is a fact that you do not take into account.The fact that many Russians acknowledge Aloshka Morozov as a saint is another sign of how the Prekrasna is from Christ. In a couple days, we will have Victory Day celebrations, look at the pictures coming from post-Sovietlandia.

Anyways I am responding too seriously to this post. Read some Freud or Hegel, Devin, like a normal secular Orthodox person.

Why should I care about what Freud, an Atheist, has to say about anything? I'm not going to read his work, just knowing his thoughts on God and religion prove that his other philosophies are just going to be deceptive, untrue, unorthodox, unchristian and frankly, just plain wrong. I'm not going to ever trust a Godless person like him on anything.(yes I do have Atheist friends, but I'm not going to seek their advice or knowledge)

Freud was a nonpractising Jew, who always underlined his heritage. Anyways, he was more Christian than most Christians today because he had six children, something today's Christians view with derision. Don't associate Freud with psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychology went down hill after WW2, psychology went from being a science studying the human soul to feel-good motivational science. Freud centered his studies on the effect of the sin of Adam and Moses on human soul. His first "patients" were Adam and Moses. Originally, he was denigrated by fellow psychiatrists as an unstable over-religious psychotic victim. How he became atheist in the eyes of people is beyond me.

Having more kids doesn't make you Christian.

Freud believed that God is an illusion, and that religious beliefs are simply delusions. This makes him an Atheist, not a Jew, i don't give a flip what his ancestry is. You deny God, you can't be Jewish, Muslim or Christian.